Category Archives: Political Correctness

A term originally meant to describe behavior that minimises offence, particularly in relation to minorities. Now the term is an overused strawmen misused against many of those against unfair prejudice. Call a racist irrational and get branded a PC pussy. The term has effectively been used to stifle debate and thought about issues. It has reframed those who want fair and equal treatment of people, to people who have a PC agenda. The term does not censor offensive discussion against minorities, but rather censors discussion for positive social change. People get branded as PC pussies instead of raising debate and free thought. Health minister Hakuo Yanagisawa calls women baby making machines. Bob: No way, he can't say that! Tom: Why not? Stop spreading your politically correct garbage here. Bob: It ain't nothing to do with political correctness. He has a responsibility to the state and people to make a good example and good policies. This statement shows he has little respect for women as people and it effects how he handles his role as a minister. It also sends the wrong message to the people.

Shintaro Ishihara claims foreigners would riot in the event of an earthquake requiring not the police but the self defense force. Bob: No way! Tom: Well someone had to come out and say the truth. All you political correct guys are pussies! Foreigners come here with their stinking culture and create crime. Bob: It has nothing to do with political correctness. It is both wrong, as foreigner in Japan have lower crime rates, and harmful, as it incites irrational xenophobic fear.

In France a local soup kitchen for the homeless only has pork dishes, while having many Muslim patrons. Bob: Man that sucks they should try some non-pork dishes too so that Muslims can also eat (Muslims can't eat pork on religous grounds). Tom: Damn pussy! Stop trying to be a politically correct idiot. Bob: What! It has nothing to do with politcal correctness. I simply want the soup kitchen to help as many people as possible. If non-pork dishes help in that sense they should do that. Particularly if it is supported by government tax breaks.

"Political correctness is one of the brilliant tools that the American Right developed in the mid-1980s as part of its demolition of American liberalism....What the sharpest thinkers on the American Right saw quickly was that by declaring war on the cultural manifestations of liberalism - by levelling the charge of political correctness against its exponents - they could discredit the whole political project." - Will Hutton

Link:

Urban Dictionary: politically correct

Pauline Hanson, an anti-immigration campaigner, shocked Parliament when she wore the burka into the chamber, to try to urge the attorney-general to ban the Islamic garment.

After receiving worldwide condemnation,Sky News host Tom Macleod clashed with the Australian MP as he demanded statistics following Ms Hansons claims.

Ms Hanson argued that political correctness in Australia would be to the countries detriment if the burka was not banned.

She said: It has been banned in a lot of countries in the world and actually a lot of them are Muslim countries. Malaysia, Tunisia, Egypt, Congo to name some.

SKYNEWSEPA

No, Australia hasnt banned it yet because we are politically correct here which is going to be to our detriment.

We are so far behind the rest of the world. They actually have the burka there and now [in Australia] and theyrealisethe impact it is having on their culture and their way of life and we need to address it now before our population of Muslims in this country grows to a stance that we cannot address.

I think this is very important. This is Australia, the burka is not Australian.

This is not the culture that we want here its not the culture of wearing the burka and hiding your face.

Its oppression of women, its control of women by a political ideology which is incompatible with our culture and way of life.

The Australian MP continued with her rant before she claimed that England hasitsown problems.

Australia hasnt banned it yet because we are politically correct here which is going to be to our detriment

Pauline Hanson

MsHanson claimed a lot of English people hhadve left the country and migrated to Australia becausethe UK has not banned the burka.

The Sky News host stepped in demanding facts from the Australian MP as he cut her off.

He snapped: You have no statistics. Whereareyour statistics?

Where is the evidence on that? Give me a number of people that have left England because of the burka.

The Australian politician angrily argued back.

She said: I am speaking. As a Member ofParliament, I have traveled my country quite extensively and I am talking to people. People are now saying, if this happens in Australia where will we go next."

MsHanson shocked the Senate chamber as she entered wearing the black Islamic body covering.

Getty Images

1 of 5

The khimar is a long veil that fall to just above the waist. It covers the hair, neck and shoulders but leaves the face clear

Addressing the attorney-general, the leader of the One Nation party urged George Brandis to work with her to ban the burka in Australia.

The MP was quickly silenced by the attorney-general who insisted Australia would not be banning the burka before he received a rare standing ovation.

He said: To ridicule that community, to drive it into a corner, to mock its religious garments is an appalling thing to do.

I am not going to pretend to ignore the stunt that you have tried to pull today by arriving in the chamber dressed in a burka when we all know that you are not an adherent of the Islamic faith.

I would caution and counsel you with respect to be very, very careful of theoffenceyou may do to the religious sensibilities of other Australians.

Read the original here:

Shamed MP behind burka ban protest says political correctness will destroy Australia - Express.co.uk

It had already been widely reported that President Donald Trump's chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, was among the very few top officials around Trump who quietly cheered as he resisted pressure to unequivocally lay the blame for the deadly violence in Charlottesville on Nazis and white supremacists.

But now Bannon has gone public with this view, in a pair of new interviews. Indeed, he has gone even further: In a striking admission, Bannon confirmed that he views the racial strife and turmoil unleashed by Charlottesville as a political winner for Trump.

In the first interview, with The New York Times, Bannon explicitly defended the portion of Trump's comments in which he seemed to defend the rallying white supremacists' opposition to the removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. Trump asked rhetorically whether this would ultimately lead to the removal of statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Here's Bannon:

"Bannon . . . said in an interview that if Democrats want to fight over Confederate monuments and attack Mr. Trump as a bigot, that was a fight the president would win.

" 'President Trump, by asking, 'Where does this all end' - Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln - connects with the American people about their history, culture and traditions,' he said.

"The race-identity politics of the left wants to say it's all racist," Bannon added. "Just give me more. Tear down more statues. Say the revolution is coming. I can't get enough of it."

In the second interview, with the American Prospect, Bannon (believing himself to be off the record) elaborated a bit more on this general theme:

"The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."

Remarkably, Bannon is gleefully discussing the political dividends that (he believes) Trump will reap from the fraught aftermath of racial violence that led to the burial of a young woman who was murdered for showing up to protest racism and white supremacy. In so doing, Bannon endorses the general view, also expressed by Trump, that leftist violence ("tear down more statues") is partly to blame for the ongoing racial strife, and defends Trump's drawing of an equivalence between statues honoring Washington and Jefferson on the one hand, and those honoring the leading lights of the Confederacy on the other.

On Thursday morning, Trump doubled down on this view in a seriesoftweets, calling efforts to remove Confederate statues and monuments "foolish":

"Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments. You can't change history, but you can learn from it. Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson - who's next, Washington, Jefferson? So foolish! Also. . .the beauty that is being taken out of our cities, towns and parks will be greatly missed and never able to be comparably replaced!"

Numerous historians have already pointed out the many problems with this equivalence. While Washington and Jefferson were indeed slave owners, they helped create the nation, while Confederate leaders sought to secede from it in order to set up a separate nation perpetuating slavery. Others have noted that the whole point of many of these Confederate monuments was to celebrate white supremacy during the Jim Crow era.

Indeed, since Bannon brought Abraham Lincoln into the discussion, let's recall that Lincoln famously hailed Jefferson by saying that his authorship of the Declaration of Independence ("all men are created equal") had given voice to "an abstract truth" that would counter "tyranny and oppression" in all future times, including in the struggle to uproot and destroy slavery. Contra Bannon, Trump's absurd conflation does not "connect" us with our history; it obscures it.

Ultimately, though, what is really significant here is Bannon's frank admission that he believes the current ongoing turmoil benefits Trump. To be sure, a more cynical, self-interested motive may be at work. As The New York Times reports:

"Mr. Bannon, whose future in the White House remains uncertain, has been encouraging Mr. Trump to remain defiant. Two White House officials who have been trying to moderate the president's position suggested that Mr. Bannon was using the crisis as a way to get back in the good graces of the president, who has soured on Mr. Bannon's internal machinations and reputation for leaking stories about West Wing rivals to conservative news media outlets."

There is ample evidence that this may indeed help Bannon's standing with Trump. The Post reports that Trump - like Bannon - also believes his remarks reiterating that "both sides" are to blame for the Charlottesville violence will boost him politically:

"Trump felt vindicated after the remarks, said people familiar with his thinking. He believes that his base agrees with his assertion that both sides are guilty of violence and that the nation risks sliding into a cauldron of political correctness."

With the special counsel's probe closing in, and with his numbers sliding deeper into the danger zone, Trump plainly believes that valiantly defying the forces of political correctness (meaning, the forces that want him to unequivocally condemn racism and white supremacy) will rally his supporters to his side. Bannon is clearly feeding that instinct, at least partly to shore up his own standing with the president. Neither, naturally, recognizes any obligations or duties on the president's part to try to calm the antagonisms that are being unleashed, and neither appears even slightly concerned about the damage they could do to the country, at a time when experts are warning that this sort of rhetoric could cause an escalation in white supremacist activity.

Indeed, as Trump's new tweetstorm in defense of Confederate monuments confirms, he appears determined to keep feeding these antagonisms. And new polling explains why.

Read the rest here:

Steve Bannon: Post-Charlottesville racial strife is a political winner for Trump - Richmond.com

Relinquishing control of the over-towering mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, would amount to a self-destruct subordination of long-term security to short-terms convenience

An historical divide exists between short-term convenience and long-term national security. The former adds fuel to the Arab-Israeli fire, as evidenced by the litany of genuine Western (mostly US) peace initiatives all of them failed, attempting to subordinate reality to oversimplification, frustrating expectations, and therefore intensifying terrorism and injuring Western stature. The only two successful attempts, so far, were Israeli initiatives of direct negotiation with Egypt and Jordan.

The appeasement of rogue regimes - Arab, Iranian or North Korean - wets their appetite and radicalizes their policies. While the defiance of rogue regimes entails short terms inconvenience, it serves long term values, principles, and national and homeland security interests.

In December, 1988, the US recognized/appeased the PLO, when it was the number one Arab terrorist organization, training terrorists from Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia, providing a tailwind to international terrorism. In September, 1993, the Oslo Accords snatched the PLO from the jaws of oblivion, when the PLO was losing ground in its own terrorist camps in Tunisia, Yemen, Libya and Lebanon. The Oslo accords conferred upon the PLO the misleading appearance of legitimacy. The pro-PLO gestures signaled submission, by the US and Israel, to wishful-thinking, rendering a victory of short-term convenience over long-term and complex reality; thus, dealing a blow to the medium and long-term homeland and national security of both countries. However, the primary victims of the enhanced stature of the PLO have been the Arabs of Judea & Samaria, who have been subjected, since 1993, to the wrath of PLO repression, corruption (e.g., Mahmoud Abbas nickname is Mr. 20%), subversion and terrorism.

Arabs throughout the Middle East are aware of the Palestinian reality. Therefore, they have showered the Palestinians with much talk but no significant walk. While Mahmoud Abbas is welcomed with a red carpet in Western capitals, he is accorded a shabby rug in Arab capitals. Arabs are familiar with the Palestinian record from the 50s, when Arafat and Abbas were involved in subversion and terrorism in Cairo, escaping to Syria. In 1966 and 1970 they fled Syria and Jordan, respectively, because of their subversion and terrorism. In 1975, after plundering South Lebanon, they tried to topple the central regime in Beirut. In August 1990, the Palestinians joined Saddam Husseins invasion and plunder of Kuwait, which throughout the years had been the most hospitable Arab country to Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas and their Palestinian allies, absorbing 300,000 Palestinians and enabling them to rise to top positions. In retaliation, following the war, and liberation by the USA, Kuwait expelled almost all Palestinians from the country.

A Palestinian state west of the Jordan River, on the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, would undermine regional stability, eroding Western interests. It would provide a decisive tailwind to the current attempts to topple the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the Jordan River. During the Israel-Jordan peace treaty ceremony, Jordanian military leaders pleaded with their Israeli counter-parts to not allow the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the river, lest it would topple the Hashemite regime east of the river. Israels military intelligence commanders were told by their Jordanian colleagues that Palestinians are known to violate in the evening that which they sign in the morning. The toppling of the Hashemite regime would trigger a tectonic ripple effect into Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arabian Peninsula, advancing the fortunes of Irans Ayatollahs and Russia, with destructive homeland security repercussions in Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America and the USA. A Palestinian state would provide Russia, and possibly China and Iran, with naval, air and land bases, which would dramatically upset the current balance of power in the Middle East and the Mediterranean, the soft belly of Europe. It would also mean the devastation of the remnants of Christian centers in Judea and Samaria.

In order to minimize the volcanic nature of the Middle East, and to remain a net-producer not a net consumer of national security, Israel should control the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, serving as a growing geo-strategic outpost of the US, extending the strategic hand of the US, and enhancing its own posture of strategic deterrence. Ceding the mountain ridges of Judea & Samaria, Israel would be squeezed within a 9-15-mile sliver along the Mediterranean, dominated by the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, eroding its military power projection, which would deny the US a unique geo-strategic beachhead, demoting Israel to a strategic burden upon the US.

In 2017, Jordan is a positive neighbor of Israel. However, in the context of the intolerant, unpredictable, violent, tectonic Middle East, regimes are provisional, as are their policies, alliances and agreements. Therefore, Israels most critical and longest border (with Jordan) - which is the closest to Jerusalem, the coastal plain and Ben Gurion Airport - could become Israels most hostile and dangerous border upon a change of regime in Amman. Hence, relinquishing control of the over-towering mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, would amount to a self-destruct subordination of long-term security to short-terms convenience.

Ambassador (Retired) Yoram Ettinger is an insider on US-Israel relations, Mideast politics and overseas investments in Israels high tech. He is a consultant to members of the Israeli Cabinet and Knesset, and regularly briefs US legislators and their staff. His OpEds have been published in Israel and the US he has been interviewed in both Australia and the U.S. A graduate of UCLA and undergraduate at UTEP, he served amongst other things, as Minister for Congressional Affairs at Israels Embassy in Washington. He is the editor of Straight from the Jerusalem Cloakroom and Boardroom newsletters on issues of national security and overseas investments in Israels high-tech.

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban. -- Follow these instructions on registering:

See the article here:

Reality vs. political correctness - Canada Free Press

We frequently wish to see a politician sincerely leave the script and speak from the heart. On Tuesday, President Trump fulfilled that desire, leaving the whole world with its mouth open.

In a combative press conference from the Trump Tower in New York, President Donald Trump decided to abandon the path of the politically correct and say exactly what was on his mind, turning the conference into one of the most important episodes in the contemporary political history of the United States.

The appointment came with the intention of outlining his infrastructure project, but his inability to address the violent encounter between extremist hate groups and counter-demonstrators in Virginia over the weekend has been perceived as a silent accolade to far-right groups, and the media focused their questions on it.

Trump's response was rising in intensity, sparking a series of denials and condemnations, challenging journalists to "define the alt-right" and falling into historical nonsense.

For the president, a group of social activists with Nazi symbols, anti-Semitic slogans and references to the KKK - carrying guns, in addition - also has "nice people", and the counter-demonstrators share the blame for the unleashed violence.

"What about the fact they came charging -- that they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do," he said. "I think there is blame on both sides."

Let us try to reconcile ideas and believe that the US president really wanted to take a neutral stance, and forget for a moment his record of racism as an entrepreneur ... is not easy. Especially when from his mouth do not cease to leave arguments like cannon shots to the boat of credibility.

You had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest because I dont know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didnt have a permit. So I only tell you this: there are two sides to a story, said the president, to the icy surprise of all who were listening.

Was the president of the United States making public an apology for racism? This seems to have been understood by members of extreme right groups. Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, for example, even thanked the president on Twitter for "condemning leftist terrorists".

The danger of this situation is not only the escalation of violence, but also its legitimacy. The absence of a condemnation argued and the insistence in the distribution of guilt, will only add fuel to the fire.

Senator Marco Rubio, who wrote in his Twitter account that the president cant allow #WhiteSupremacists to share only part of blame. They support idea which cost nation & world so much pain. The #WhiteSupremacy groups will see being assigned only 50% of blame as a win. We can not allow this old evil to be resurrected.

For Democrats, Trump's reaction is due to his desire to maintain the support of white nationalists and the extreme right, especially from its political activists. This may have influenced the president's delay in addressing "the biggest domestic challenge during his short presidency," as described by Reuters, as it took him more than 48 hours to deliver a controlled and read speech, which cataloged the KKK and neo-Nazis as "criminals and thugs".

But enough for Trump to skip the pattern, forget the script and let his true self to flourish, so that the whole world is convinced that, unfortunately, racism has a permit under this administration.

Read the original here:

Trump abandons political correctness and shows his true self - AL DIA News

A critically acclaimed musical with one of the most diverse casts on Broadway tried to reverse slumping ticket sales by replacing a black actor with a more famous white one, but social justice warriors torpedoed the move, and the show will not go on as a result.

Natasha, Pierre & the Great Comet of 1812 will hold its final performance on Sept. 3, four months after it was nominated for 12 Tony Awards, the most of any production last season.

The historical musical joins a growing list of artistic endeavors to offend social justice advocates over issues of identity politics. Social critics savaged last years Marvel Universe film Doctor Strange, accusing filmmakers of whitewashing an Asian character by employing actress Tilda Swinton as The Ancient One.

They also rejected the Nina Simone biopic Nina because lead actress Zoe Saldana had to use a prosthetic nose and darken her skin for the role.

Christian Toto, a film critic who edits the Hollywood in Toto blog, said the fall of The Great Comet is just the latest example of political correctness suffocating art.

This is an area where race shouldnt matter, in part because the production itself was known for its diversity, Mr. Toto said. This was not an all-white show where they finally hired a person of color and kicked him out. This was a show with a very diverse cast doing what youd think was the right thing from the social justice playbook, and it still wasnt enough.

Based on a 70-page excerpt from Leo Tolstoys War and Peace, The Great Comet enjoyed a meteoric rise to prominence when it opened at the Imperial Theater last fall.

The role of Pierre Bezukhov had been played by singer-songwriter Josh Groban, who is white. He left the show in early July and was replaced by Hamilton veteran Okieriete Oak Onaodowan, who is black.

Ticket sales lulled without Mr. Groban, and producers Howard and Janet Kagan feared The Great Comet would come crashing down without a new star to fill seats.

On July 26, they announced that Mr. Onaodowan had graciously agreed to step aside for Tony-winning actor Mandy Patinkin, who stars in the Showtime series Homeland and has been one of Broadways biggest names for decades.

Oak, who was scheduled to appear as Pierre for this period, graciously agreed to make room for Mandy, and we sincerely hope that Oak will return to us in the fall or winter, Mr. Kagan said in a statement at the time. He is a terrific Pierre.

The decision to replace a black actor with a white one resulted in an immediate backlash on social media and in the theater community.

Writing at the website Broadway Black, Jamara Wakefield said the move raises questions about how Black actors are valued and supported within Broadway.

It is ironic when Black actors participate in narratives about colonial history, change present day history by adding to the diversity to Broadway, and then are easily replaced as if their only value to a production is based on ticket sales, Ms. Wakefield wrote.

Tony-winning actress Cynthia Erivo said the effort to boost ticket sales shouldnt override a person doing his job.

What I know for a fact is that Oak worked extremely hard for this, Ms. Erivo said on Twitter. Which makes this occurrence distasteful and uncouth.

In response to the public outcry, Mr. Patinkin withdrew from the role of Pierre, saying he misunderstood Mr. Onaodowans receptiveness of the change and would never accept a role knowing it would harm another actor.

I am a huge fan of Oak and I will, therefore, not be appearing in the show, he wrote.

The shows producers released a statement saying they had the wrong impression of how Oak felt about the casting announcement and how it would be received by members of the theater community, which we appreciate is deeply invested in the success of actors of color as are we and to whom we are grateful for bringing this to our attention.

In a series of posts on Twitter, Great Comet creator Dave Malloy said the show approached Mr. Patinkin only because it was in desperate shape and on the brink of collapse. He apologized for missing the racial optics of the situation.

Despite Mr. Patinkins withdrawal, Mr. Onaodowan announced that he would still be leaving the show and delivered his final performance on Aug. 13. The role of Pierre will be played by Mr. Malloy during its final two weeks.

The Great Comet is not the only show that has run afoul of the arbiters of political correctness, but it may be the most diverse.

Indeed, director Rachel Chavkin said The Great Comet went out of its way to make color-conscious casting decisions.

Internally and this emanates from Dave and me, but its a value shared by everyone on the team there is a commitment to color-conscious casting, to ensuring diversity at all levels, Ms. Chavkin said in an interview with Deadline in June. Ive been acutely aware of my own failings to ensure always diverse creative teams, and thats something Im beginning to be more conscious of in my career.

Meanwhile, the World War II film Dunkirk, which depicts the evacuation of British troops across the English Channel, was panned by some critics for lacking a diverse cast.

HBOs Confederate, a streaming series that has yet to air about what would have happened if the Confederate States of America had won the Civil War, already is facing charges of cultural appropriation. Critics have accused two of its producers, who created the networks popular Game of Thrones series, of seeking to create a slave fan fiction for Confederacy apologists.

Given how diverse the cast of The Great Comet is, Mr. Toto called the efforts of the social justice warriors short-sighted.

You would think that the people sharing their outrage would think, Wait a minute, if the show closes because they get rid of the successful white actor, then those people are out of work, he said. And now those people are out of work because of it. Its very short-sighted, and its very absurd.

Original post:

'Great Comet' Broadway hit falls from political correctness ... - Washington Times

ST. JOHNSBURY School Director Tony Greenwood doesnt like all the political correctness around how public schools are allowed to recognize religious holidays, and made that clear this week as a new policy on holiday programming was reviewed.

kAm%96 3@2C5 925 :ED 7:CDE C625:?8 @7 E96 AC@A@D65 A@=:4J |@?52J ?:89E[ 2?5 >@G65 :E E@ :ED D64@?5 C625:?8 7@C 2 $6AE6>36C >66E:?8j 2E E92E >66E:?8[ $FAE] #2??J q=65D@6 H:== :?G:E6 E96 25>:?:DEC2E@CD 7C@> E96 $E] y@9?D3FCJ $49@@= H9@ H@C<65 @? E96 A@=:4J E@ 4@>6 2?5 255C6DD E96 3@2C5]k^Am

kAmvC66?H@@5 DA@<6 7:CDE 23@FE E96 A@=:4J[ D2J:?8[ x C625 E96 A@=:4J[ 2?5 x F?56CDE2?5 H96C6 :ED 4@>:?8 7C@> 2?5 x 5@?E 28C66 H:E9 2== E96 A@=:E:42= 4@CC64E?6DD]k^Am

kAmq@2C5 r92:C q642<6 2 $E2C @7 s2G:5[ 2?5 E96? 8@ @G6C 2?5 >2<6 D@>6E9:?8 7@C zH2?K22[ 2E 2 9@=:52J 6G6?E]k^Am

kAmq=65D@6 D2:5[ (6 42?E 5@ 2?JE9:?8 E92E H@F=5 36 :?E6CAC6E65 2D 36:?8 2 AC@A@?6?E @7 C6=:8:@?]k^Am

kAmvC66?H@@5 E@@< E96 5:D4FDD:@? 23@FE E96 ?6H A@=:4J 324< E@ =2DE J62CD 9@=:52J 4@?46CE 2E E96 D49@@=[ 2?5 D2:5 96 962C5 ?@E9:?8 8@@5 23@FE :E]k^Am

kAmx 5:5?E 86E 2 =@E @7 72G@C23=6 4@>>6?ED E96J H2?E65 >@C6 9@=:52J DEF77[ D2:5 vC66?H@@5 @7 E96 >FD:42= D6=64E:@?D 2E E96 9@=:52J 4@?46C?] }@E ;FDE E96 r9C:DE>2D DEF77[ ;FDE >@C6 FA362E[ =6DD 3=29[ J@F

kAmq2=52F7 D2:5[ x H2D G6CJ A=62D65 H:E9 E96 D6=64E:@?D >256 @G6C E96 =2DE D6G6C2= J62CD H:E9 E96 32?5 2?5 E96 49@:C[ E96J D2?8 2 G2C:6EJ @7 D@?8D]k^Am

kAmx> E2=<:?8 23@FE H92E E96 <:5D 5@ 2E E96 9@=:52J 4@?46CE[ D2:5 vC66?H@@5]k^Am

kAmw6 D2:5[ xE D9@F=5?E 36 E23@@ E@ 36 H9@ J@F 2C6]k^Am

kAmxE D9@F=5?E 36 2 H:?E6C 46=63C2E:@? H9J 😀 :E E23@@ E@ E2=< 23@FE H92E6G6C :E :D[ D2:5 vC66?H@@5[ =@@<:?8 E@ E96 DFA6C:?E6?56?E 2?5 D2J:?8[ xED ?@E =:<6 J@F E@ E:AE@6 2C@F?5 E96 E@A:4[ J6E H96? :E 4@>6D E@ E9:D E@A:4[ J@FC6 C62==J ?@E H2?E:?8 E@ D2J E96 H@C5 r9C:DE>2D[ @C r9C:DE[ H9Jnk^Am

kAm%96 AC@A@D65 H@C5:?8 7@C E96 A@=:4J DE2E6>6?E 36:?8 4@?D:56C65 DE2E6D xE 😀 E96 A@=:4J @7 E96 $E] y@9?D3FCJ $49@@= s:DEC:4E E@ C64@8?:K6 E96 5:G6CD6 36=:67D H9:49 2C6 96=5 3J E96 G2C:@FD 4@?DE:EF6?ED @7 @FC D49@@= 4@>>F?:EJ[ 2?5 E@ 6?4@FC286 2== DEF56?ED 2?5 DE277 E@ 2AAC64:2E6 2?5 36 E@=6C2?E @7 6249 @E96CD C6=:8:@FD 36=:67D] xE 😀 E96 8@2= @7 E96 s:DEC:4E E@ 7@DE6C F?56CDE2?5:?8 2?5 >FEF2= C6DA64E 2>@?8 A6@A=6 @7 5:776C6?E C246[ 4F=EFC6[ 64@?@>:4 324<8C@F?5 @C C6=:8:@FD 36=:67]k^Am

kAm%96C6 2C6 EH@ =6?8E9J A2C28C2A9D E92E 7@==@H 2D E96 C2E:@?2=6 369:?5 E96 A@=:4J[ 6>A92D:K:?8[ %96 AC:>2CJ >:DD:@? @7 E96 s:DEC:4E 😀 65F42E:@?] %96 AC@A6C C@=6 @7 C6=:8:@? 😕 E96 AF3=:4 D49@@= =:6D 😕 :ED 24256>:4 G2=F6 2?5 ?@E 😕 E96 2AAC@AC:2E:@? @C 6?5@CD6>6?E @7 2?J A2CE:4F=2C C6=:8:@? @C 36=:67 DJDE6>[ @C @7 C6=:8:@? @G6C ?@?C6=:8:@?]k^Am

kAmu@C E9:D C62D@?[ E96 $49@@= s:DEC:4E 6?4@FC286D E96 25G2?46>6?E @7 @FC DEF56?ED 6?E @7 4:G:=:K2E:@?]k^Am

kAm%96 5C27E A@=:4J 2=D@ =2JD @FE 7:G6 DE6AD 😕 7FCE96C2?46 @7 E9:D A@=:4J[ :?4=F5:?8 E92E 2?J C6=:8:@FD 6?8286>6?E >FDE 36 7@4FD65 @? 65F42E:@? 2?5 F?56CDE2?5:?8 2D :ED 8@2=j E92E 4FCC:4F=F> A=2??:?8 7@C C6=:8:@FD :?DECF4E:@? :?4=F56 5:G6CD6 C6=:8:@FD 36=:67D 2?5 AC24E:46Dj E92E E6249:?8 23@FE C6=:8:@FD 9@=:52JD 😀 A6C>:DD:3=6 2?5 😀 5:776C6?E 7C@> 46=63C2E:?8 C6=:8:@FD 9@=:52JD[ H9:49 😀 ?@E A6C>:DD:3=6[j E92E E96 D49@@= H:== 36 D6?D:E:G6 2?5 C6DA@?D:G6 E@ C6=:8:@FD 4F=EFC6D @C EC25:E:@?Dj 2?5 E96 D49@@= AC:?4:A2=D 2C6 C6DA@?D:3=6 7@C :>A=6>6?E:?8 E96 A@=:4J]k^Am

kAmq=65D@6[ 😕 C6DA@?D6 E@ vC66?H@@5D BF6DE:@?D[ D2:5 E96C6 92D 366? 6IE6?D:G6 H@C< 5@?6 @? E96 :DDF6 2?5 E96 D49@@= 5:DEC:4E 5@6D ?@E H2?E E@ 6IA@D6 :ED6=7 E@ 2?J A@DD:3=6 =682= 492==6?86D]k^Am

kAm$96 42==65 FA 2 76H D=:56D 7C@> 2 AC6D6?E2E:@? @? E96 u:CDE p>6?5>6?E[ 2?5 D92C65 D@>6 @7 E96 =2?8F286]k^Am

kAmx> ?@E ECJ:?8 E@ 36 CF56[ D2:5 vC66?H@@5] x> C62==J D:?46C6 23@FE E9:D] x> ECJ:?8 E@ 86E >@C6 56E2:= 23@FE H96C6 E96 =:?6 😀 36:?8 5C2H? 3J E9:D A@=:4J @C H96C6 :E :D?E]k^Am

kAmw@=:52J A2CE:6D 42? 36 96=5[ *@F ;FDE 42?E 42== :E 2 r9C:DE>2D A2CEJ[ D2:5 3@2C5 >6>36C s62?6 #2?<:?]k^Am

kAmq=65D@6 D2:5 E96 D49@@=D A@=:4J 4@>>:EE66 D@F89E E@ HC:E6 2 A@=:4J E92E 😀 D:>A=6 2?5 4=62C[ 2?5 DE:== 6?4@FC286D 46=63C2E:@?D[ 3FE AC@E64ED FD 7C@> E92E =682= 7:?6 =:?6 @7 ?@E 25G@42E:?8 7@C 2 A2CE:4F=2C C6=:8:@?]k^Am

kAm$@ $FKJ >2<6D 2 4@FA=6 @7 2?86=D 2?5 E2A6D E96> E@ E96 5@@C[ E96JC6 ?@E 8@:?8 E@ 86E C:AA65 5@H?n A@D65 vC66?H@@5]k^Am

kAmq=65D@6 C6DA@?565[ x 5@?E E9:?< 2?J@?6 :D 8@:?8 E@ C:A D@>6E9:?8 5@H?]k^Am

kAm%96C6 H2D G6CJ DEC@?8 25G@424J 7@C E9:D A@=:4J[ D2:5 q=65D@6] |@DE @7 E9:D H2D E2<6? 7C@> E96 '$qp W'6C>@?E $49@@= q@2C5D pDD@4:2E:@?X]k^Am

kAmq=65D@6 D2:5[ x 5@?E H2?E E@ 86E DF65[ :ED ?@E H@CE9 :E] %96C6 92G6 366? C62= =682= 42D6D @G6C H92E 😀 2?5 😀 ?@E 2AAC@AC:2E6[ x 5@?E E9:?< 86EE:?8 :? E96 >:55=6 @7 2 >6DD 😀 H@CE9 :E] (6C6 ?@E >2<:?8 2 A@:?E @C 2 C6=:8:@FD DE2E6>6?E 96C6[ H6C6 ECJ:?8 E@ 65F42E6 <:5D]k^Am

kAm#2?<:? D2:5 E96 :DDF6 H2D 564:565 =@?8 28@ H:E9 E96 D6A2C2E:@? @7 D49@@= 2?5 DE2E6] (6 42?E 5@ 7@C @?6 9@=:52J H92E H6 5@?E 7@C 2?@E96C]k^Am

kAmq=65D@6 D2:5 @776C:?8 65F42E:@? @? 2? 2CC2J @7 C6=:8:@?D[ E@@[ C6AC6D6?ED 2 =@E @7 H@C<]k^Am

kAm#2?<:? D2:5[ x E9:?< J@F 42? =62C? 2 9F86 2>@F?E 7C@> DEF5J:?8 2?J C6=:8:@?[ E96 8@@5[ E96 325 2?5 E96 F8=J] &?7@CEF?2E6=J[ H6C6 😕 E92E D@4:6E2= A92D6 H96C6 DE2CE:?8 😕 E96 `hd_D D2J:?8 ?@[ H6 42?E 7F?5 A2C@49:2= D49@@=D E92E H6 <:?5 @7 8@E =68:D=2E65 @FE @7 E96 23:=:EJ E@ <66A C6=:8:@? :? D49@@= 7@C C:89E @C HC@?8[ E92ED E96 H2J :E :D]k^Am

kAmx 7@C @?6 2> ;FDE 86EE:?8 E:C65 @7 36:?8 AFD965 2C@F?5 3J D@4:6EJ[ 2?5 x =:<6 E@ AFD9 324<[ 3642FD6 :ED >J C:89E E@ AFD9 324<[ D2:5 vC66?H@@5] %96JC6 49@<:?8 E96 =:76 @FE @7 FD]k^Am

kAmvC66?H@@5 28C665 E@ >@G6 E96 A@=:4J 7C@> 7:CDE E@ D64@?5 C625:?8[ 2?5 962C 7C@> E96 AC:?4:A2=D 2E E96 $6AE6>36C >66E:?8]k^Am

kAmxED ?@E =:<6 x 42? H:? E9:D @?6[ x 62? x 5@?E 92G6 2? @3=:82E:@? E@ DA62< FA 7@C H92E x C62==J 766=[ 96 D2:5]k^Am

Read the original here:

St. J School Director: Political Correctness 'Choking The Life' Out Of The Holidays - Caledonian Record

In 1966, Ronald Reagan was elected governor of California on a promise to clean up the mess at Berkeley, which he described as a haven for communist sympathizers, protesters, and sex deviants. Reagan got the schools president fired, attempted to cut the educational budget, and, in 1969, ordered an armed confrontation with student demonstrators who were protesting the war. Officers opened fire with shotguns and tear gas. One student, a bystander, was killed. Another was permanently blinded, and 32 were hospitalized with severe injuries.

On May 1, 1970, President Richard Nixon told an audience at the Pentagon: You see these bums, you know, blowing up the campuses. Listen, the boys that are on the college campuses today are the luckiest people in the world, going to the greatest universities, and here they are burning up the books, storming around about [the Vietnam War]. Three days later, the Ohio National Guard opened fire on student protesters at Kent State University, leaving four students dead and nine wounded. On May 15, local police killed two black students and left twelve more wounded during a demonstration at Jackson State University in Jackson, Mississippi.

Somehow, despite decades worth of counterexamples, the American mainstream remains convinced that campus activists represent a unique threat to public safety and civil discourse. For the last two years in particular, Americas worst opinion columnists have been echoing the hippie-punching sadism of 1960s politicians.

In April, New Yorks Jonathan Chait called for forceful opposition to illiberal student demonstrators. The Atlantics Conor Friedersdorf has written dozens of columns about the dangers of political correctness on campus, like students signing petitions or people being mean to racists on Facebook. In May, Bret Stephens wrote in the New York Times that students with traditional religious values or conservative political views now feel decidedly unsafe about expressing their views on campus.

Friday night, hundreds of torch-bearing neo-Nazi protesters, presumably not feeling decidedly unsafe, marched through the University of Virginias Charlottesville campus. They chanted traditional religious values like Fuck you faggots! Former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke joined them to deliver conservative political views: We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. Thats what we believed in. Thats why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said hes going to take our country back, he said. The local police did virtually nothing to stop them, even as they threw rocks and maced counterprotesters. Finally, one of the neo-Nazis rammed his car several times into a mass of counterprotesters holding anti-fascist, worker solidarity, and Black Lives Matter signs, leaving one dead and 19 seriously injured.

Despite having his name explicitly invoked by a neo-Nazi leader during the unrest, Donald Trump opted to remain neutral, calling it an egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides. He downplayed the effect his administrations race-baiting has had on white nationalists: It has been going on for a long time in our country not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama. It has been going on for a long, long time.

Trumps comment about violence on many sides is part of a larger pattern of commentators ignoring the massive power differential between young left-wing activists and their adversaries. Even as neo-Nazis welcomed the election of their favored candidate, and as hate crimes spiked, too many journalists attempted to maintain neutrality. So far, the only demonstrator to actually murder someone on a college campus has been a member of the alt-right, 20-year-old James Alex Fields. But, for years now, the commentariat has lambasted students for trying to repel speakers who pander directly to Fields demographic because student protesters censored far-right ideologues, they were made equal to the fans of those far-right ideologues, who actually kill people.

Student activists prevented statutory rape advocate and alt-right leader Milo Yiannopoulos from directly targeting undocumented and transgender students. They prevented Charles Murray, the most prominent American race scientist since Madison Grant, from speaking at Middlebury College. They prevented Ann Coulter from giving a talk at Berkeley that very likely would have resembled the statement David Duke delivered at UVA. For this, they earned the bottomless ire of the media. Even the day of the murder in Charlottesville, The Atlantics Peter Beinart published an egregiously ill-timed article titled The Rise of the Violent Left.

For the commentators cocooned in Westchester County and the DC suburbs, ideology is a harmless hobby. But true ideology is not a thought experiment. The ideology put forth by alt-right firebrands like Yiannopoulos inspires action, and that action often leads to hate crimes. The audience expected to attend presentations by Yiannopoulos and Coulter is the same crowd that just marched through the UVA campus carrying torches and giving the Sieg Heil angry young white men in polos and khakis, radicalized by Breitbart, Infowars, and The Daily Stormer, who carry weapons in anticipation of public clashes with anti-fascists and Black Lives Matter. If you let their heroes speak, you invite them to campus. When you invite them to campus, you invite violent hate crimes. It doesnt appear out of nowhere, and it doesnt come from many sides.

While Americas milquetoast centrists may have had their judgement clouded by a debate-club mentality, commentators on the right were well aware what might result from a media frenzy against young left-wing demonstrators. Earlier this year, dozens of conservative publications trotted out Ronald Reagans decision to use deadly force at UC Berkeley as something to aspire to. In February, Fox News ran the headline This Is How Ronald Reagan Dealt With UC Berkeley Protesters In 1969. Similar articles appeared on The Blaze and The Daily Wire. In April, The Federalist published an article titled Heres What Ronald Reagan Did When College Kids Went Ape At UC-Berkeley. Author Donna Carol Voss noted that an innocent bystander was killed and several more injured, but nevertheless asked Where is Ronald Reagan when we need him? He would have put a stop to it all right quick. These were not calls for free expression or tolerance of right-wing views they were calls for blood. The right-wing media openly prescribed deadly force for out-of-control left-wing activists. Is it any surprise that someone listened?

The far right knows exactly what happens when the media continually exaggerates the threat posed by campus politics. The state cracks down, teenagers are maimed or killed, and middle-aged sadists re-elect whoever ordered the violent repression. If not, a vigilante like Fields, high on far-right agitprop, will step in. It worked for George Wallace, it worked for Reagan, it worked for Nixon, and it might just work for Trump. In the most optimistic view, the centrist commentators who wasted so many columns scolding student activists to a national audience didnt know how useful their screeds were to the far right. They forgot that, for the last 50 years, hysterical media anger at uppity college students has always turned out to be unfounded and embarrassing in hindsight. They forgot that college students were right about Vietnam, civil rights, apartheid, and every other cause handwringing centrists accepted long after the fact. The brightest minds in the liberal media simply forgot that college protesters have never been the perpetrators of deadly violence only the victims. If this is true, it would serve them well to remember.

Power

Who cares what college students think?

A lot of journalists, and its weird.

Read More

Visit link:

Political correctness doesn't kill people | The Outline - The Outline

Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is author of the book on corporate power, Midnight in the American Empire," released in 2013. robertvbridge@yahoo.com

The events that just rocked Charlottesville, Virginia are symptomatic of every ailment now infecting the US political body - extreme political correctness, intolerance of free speech, and a police presence that seems designed to promote violence rather than curb it.

If ever there was a lightning rod for attracting the disciples of Liberalism and political correctness, the new creed that is destroying honest debate and discourse in the Land of the Free, you could do no worse than a bronze statue of Robert E. Lee in the town square. For those who never heard of the man, Lee was a very skilled general who led the South's Confederate forces against Lincoln's Union during the Civil War, the bloodiest US military conflict to date.

Lee also proved irresistible to the alternative right ('alt-right'), an increasingly vocal group of predominantly frustrated white men who, in this latest convulsion to rattle the US, view the removal of the Southern general's statue as an appropriate metaphor for the endangered white male. The Anti-Defamation League defines the alt-right as individuals who want to preserve the white majority in the US, over fears that descendants of white Europeans are losing their majority status, which will eventually result in white genocide.

Although there is a big temptation to connect this latest bout of left-right strife with the rise of Donald Trump, and the epic fall of Hillary Clinton, that explanation falls wide of the mark. As witnessed by the Tea Party and other right-wing movements, such as Unite the Right, Oath Keepers and the 3 Percenters, these groups were itching for a fight long before the mogul of Manhattan crashed the political scene. But the left has been equally guilty of kicking up its share of dirt.

The great schism in American politics began shortly after the attacks of 9/11 when George W. Bush initiated an opportunistic crackdown on civil liberties through the Patriot Act, a veritable tome that few legislators had a chance to read, yet signed it into law anyways. This slide towards totalitarianism continued under Barack Obama, the first president to carry out extrajudicial killings of US citizens outside of war zones, oversee a vast surveillance network courtesy of the NSA, and speak openly about 'updating' the Second Amendment right to bear firearms. These constitutionally-challenged moves made a lot of conservative-minded folks, and certainly some Liberals, very nervous.

However, what seems to have really triggered the right was Obamas raft of culturally explosive legislation, which turned traditional American values on their head overnight. From the legalization of marijuana, to endorsing same-sex marriages, to opening the door, quite literally, to transgenders using the bathroom and changing facilities of their choice, it seems Obama punched every hot-button issue before leaving office.

At the same time, the left, well before Trump was considered hot political property, was also manning the trenches. On Sept. 17, 2011, a group called Occupy Wall Street took over Zuccotti Park in the heart of New Yorks financial district, where they held protests against economic inequality. The protesters were forced to leave their site on November 15, 2011, but their message continues to resonate to this day.

Two years later, following the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of African-American teenager Trayvon Martin, the Black Lives Matter hashtag became a social media phenomenon. The tag went from the world of virtual reality to the streets, where thousands of protesters condemned a reported rise in police brutality against blacks.

Finally, and very disturbingly, a group called Antifa arrived on the scene, espousing anti-fascist rhetoric against far-right groups. This militant group, which has been declared a domestic terrorist organization by the New Jersey Department of Homeland Security, resorts to violent tactics that mirror the very fascist ideology it purports to be challenging. At Berkeley, black-masked Antifa members reportedly left behind property damage and started fires, while the group violently disrupted the March 4 Trump event. This thuggish tendency, which seems to be strangely prevalent among groups on the left, to resort to outright violence every time somebody attempts to challenge an idea sets a disastrous precedent.

Now, with the arrival of Donald Trump on the scene, all of this accumulated political firewood, as it were, has paved the way for round one of a conflagration that won't be resolved anytime soon.

In considering the violent events that shook Charlottesville, where actual fatalities and numerous injuries occurred, it is important to consider what sparked this event, and that was the decision to remove Robert E. Lee's statue from the city center. It seems a reasonable case could be made for both sides of the debate, yet that is exactly what is missing in America these days - healthy debate.

First, it must be said the Confederate cause that Lee defended - that is, an agrarian system based on slavery - is obviously noxious and indefensible. Hundreds of thousands of Africans were physically removed from their homeland and delivered to American shores, forced to till the fields of their 'masters' from morning til night. Not until the emergence of Abraham Lincoln and the North's hard-fought victory in the Civil War did African Americans secure their full-fledged membership in US society. Thus, many Americans find it distasteful that a statue of Lee, gallantly astride his horse, sits in a park that bears his namesake.

Read more

Yet the question remains. Will removing Lee's statue eliminate the stain of slavery from American history books? No, it won't. So what is it exactly that we wish to accomplish by its removal? Should Americans be expected to tear down every physical reminder of those historical figures whose ultimate legacy was being on the wrong side of history? Should we be prepared to close down Gettysburg Military Park in Pennsylvania, for example, the sprawling site of the Battle of Gettysburg, the Civil War's bloodiest battle that precipitated the final defeat of Lee's army? It was on the basis of that victory, after all, that lent inspiration to Lincoln's famous 'Gettysburg Address.'

"To forget history is to repeat it" is not some silly cliche, but sound advice that we ignore at our own peril.

The willingness to remove statues from our main squares is just one step away, I believe, from demanding history books be purged from any reference to such events for fear of offending somebody. In both cases, we wish to remove the physical content because we find it morally offensive. But isn't that the same thing as forgetting history? Thanks to the toxic atmosphere of political correctness that has sanitized all debate and discussion, we already see the first signs of such extreme thinking. It's a sad day in America when university campuses, the very fountain of free thought, resort to violence every time a controversial guest speaker is invited to address a group of students.

So deeply entrenched are the roots of political correctness that Americans, who can barely pronounce the words 'male' and 'female' these days without facing a lawsuit, are now willing to remove not only stone representations of dead historical figures who still have hard lessons to teach, but living, breathing individuals carrying messages that some may find unsettling, yet that have a right to be spoken nevertheless.

As a nation, we've traveled light years away from the sound advice given by the English writer, Beatrice Hall, who said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Meanwhile, the right of assembly by all participants should have been protected by the authorities in Charlottesville since the idea of allowing these two groups, which exist at extreme ends on the political spectrum, to mingle in the proximity of tiny Emancipation Park (formerly called 'Lee Park') was simply insane.

It that Unite the Right (UtR) had secured the necessary permits to assemble to hear various speakers discuss the decision to remove the historical Lee statue. They also had the blessing of the American Civil Liberties Union (Yet this did not stop "Unite The Right" organizer Jason Kessler from being attacked by protesters while attempting to hold a news conference). This decision naturally led to counter groups, notably from Antifa, to also secure permits to hold counter rallies. Thus, this quaint Virginia town had collected together enough combustible material to have given the authorities enough incentive to ensure public safety, yet once again the police failed spectacularly on that point.

Reminiscent of the violence that left Berkeley campus resembling a war zone over a scheduled talk by Milo Yiannopoulos, a British commentator associated with the so-called alt-right, the Charlottesville police fueled the tension by driving the conflicting sides into something resembling a mosh pit. Indeed, by all outside appearances, it looked as if the police were willfully inciting violence between the leftist and rightist camps.

Are the local police forces really so inept as to force two opposing groups together during a protest? According to various accounts I have heard, that is exactly what happened. While I will leave the question of police measures to other commentators, it needs to be emphasized that if Americans are to retain their constitutionally protected freedom of speech and assembly, then the authorities must be expected to create the safe spaces for such events.

When Americans are being physically denied the right to express themselves due to an oppressive atmosphere of political correctness, then the authorities must take the necessary steps to protect them, otherwise the natural result will be more violence.

It's sad that the national state of debate in America has reached the point when such measures are required, but without open discussion on all issues, America will be stuck in a Civil War mindset.

@Robert_Bridge

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

View post:

Welcome to Charlottesville - proof that political correctness is wrecking America - RT

HBO star Bill Maher, while appearing on a CNN interview Sunday, slammed the network for firing conservative contributor Jeffrey Lord, saying the decision was motivated by political correctness.

"Your colleague I don't agree with him Jeffrey Lord, CNN got rid of him because he said 'sieg heil' on a tweet," Maher told CNN's Fareed Zakaria. "It was a joke. This has gotta stop: This idea of people have to go away if they've offended me even for one moment. How about just move on, turn the page? Go to the next thing in your life?"

Maher's comments came after Zakaria brought up the left's "puritanism" about what should and should not be said. The "Real Time With Bill Maher" host, who is no stranger to criticism based on his own often-controversial statements, has often complained liberals are too politically correct.

Maher told Zakaria on Sunday there is a part of the Democratic Party that is "plainly obnoxious," because they are "humorless, they're too politically correct."

President Donald Trump's people are "not unaware of his flaws," Maher said. "But what they always say, like the first thing what they love about him, he's politically incorrect."

Even though Trump's people "know that he's bad in a lot of ways," Maher said, "they would rather be on his team 'than those insufferable people on the left.' That's how they think."

Maher said millennials are specifically part of the problem, and there is an amazing number of them "who really don't even believe in free speech, because you know what? Free speech could lead to hurt feelings. Who gave these kids these priorities?"

2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

View original post here:

Maher Slams CNN: Jeffrey Lord Fired Over Political Correctness - Newsmax